Just back to the original cab in question: https://imgur.com/a/cHsiEJS - it most definitely has vents!

I'm just a bit surprised there's no information public which indicates what areas are getting gfast. Ironically, I'm looking at moving next year so probably won't be able to give it a go!

Edited by deleted (Sun 16-Dec-18 16:08:50)

In reply to a post by biohead:

Just back to the original cab in question: https://imgur.com/a/cHsiEJS - it most definitely has vents!

I'm just a bit surprised there's no information public which indicates what areas are getting gfast. Ironically, I'm looking at moving next year so probably won't be able to give it a go!

Yeah it's a bit odd. Openreach have this whole public roll-out programme going while not mentioning quite a lot of places that are also getting it. From this afternoon's drive to golf it seems like all of Brackley is getting G.FAST but there's no mention of it in Openreach publicity.

When I saw the Morrison�s guy doing the fibre for my cabinet last week, he informed me that they had only the first card in, also it was apparent the filters/fuses only had 24(maybe) plugged in .....

Not the actions of a company waiting to be swamped by orders is it ?

My place to the cab is about 65m as the crow flies, but 181m by accurate measurement. ..... So scope for massive improvements seems unlikely for the majority.

I still think it is a chocolate teapot of a product. Full fibre or nowt. Don�t get me wrong, I�ll give it a go if offered, but.

I think it is an expensive way of saying they have coverage of n% at these speeds. The bean counters probably don't expect high take up, but it satisfies Ofcom and the government .

Completely agree Bob.

Was going to witter on in my last post how I thought it was just driven by regulatory pressure.

I can out-witter you any time . Outwit you though, I very much doubt.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I can out-witter you any time . Outwit you though, I very much doubt.

It seemed to make some sense as a small pod to hang off a lamp-post in not-spots but obviously that didn't pan out. That was the point when they should have dropped it but I suppose too much money had been invested and they didn't want to be seen to have funded a dead end.

Edited by Andrue (Sun 16-Dec-18 20:28:15)

I agree. They possibly had bulk manufacturing contracts that they couldn't get out of as well.

Cheaper to build gfast and find there is no demand than build full fibre and find there is no demand.

>>I still think it is a chocolate teapot of a product. Full fibre or nowt.

Punters don't care about whether a product is delivered over gfast or full fibre. All they care about is price. When it comes to digging up peoples block pavers they may well prefer gfast's price and implementation.